LiE's Diet and Training Thread

Nope, but I have to say that little bit of extra core tightness is good when lifting on the edge of failure.
 
I guess you can get away with you core weakening by using a belt. I forgot you wanted to compete. Yet another reason why I'll never compete! (And no Steedie I still won't compete in BB either :p). :D
 
I'm actually a lot more conscience of how much my core is 'on' when using a belt. My core was fried after deadlifts this week.
 
Yeah, almost didn't want to have another "disagreement", but yeah, I don't know why people think wearing a belt weakens the core. Surely if that were true, all of one's unbelted lifts would go to ****. But exactly the opposite happens.

If I remember correctly, there have been EMG studies comparing belted and unbelted lifts (can't remember which), which just a slightly different pattern of muscle activation in terms of which abdominal muscle groups, but no deactivation.

But I don't really put all that much stock in EMG studies when it comes to actually building strength; I've seen EMG studies show there's little to know hamstring/glute contribution to a squat. :rolleyes:

I've always felt, if anything, properly using a belt could actually strengthen your abs more than not wearing a belt. Think about it; wearing a belt actually gives your abs something to push against... you know, like, a resistance. This is mostly conjecture, but certainly plausible.
 
icecold said:
People certainly can switch off their core, but used correctly you'll get as much activation with a belt as without.
Click to expand...

I'm sure someone with your experience or lie's increasing experience won't struggle. I just think they are something to be used as an absolute fails age if you've had an injury or are on the edge of your physical capability. I personally would rather keep to what I'm able to do unaided. :) but I'm not competing.
 
Freefaller said:
Wearing a belt compensates for poor form. I used the wrong term... Belts aren't for me I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

A belt doesn't change the form of the lift. If your form is bad you'll injure yourself with or without a belt.

I can do the same weights/form without a belt, I just prefer to have an extra amount of core stability as a buffer.
 
Last edited:
No. A belt helps to compensate for poor form and enables you I lift with poor form. I'm not saying that YOU do, but it Is one of the disadvantages of a belt. Obviously if you've got good form and a strong core you may be able to enhance your lifts and protect you on the limit - that's understandable and fine.
 
The time belts become an issue is when a n00b starts using it for 60kg squats, then continues to use it for everything else.
 
Freefaller said:
No. A belt helps to compensate for poor form and enables you I lift with poor form. I'm not saying that YOU do, but it Is one of the disadvantages of a belt. Obviously if you've got good form and a strong core you may be able to enhance your lifts and protect you on the limit - that's understandable and fine.
Click to expand...

I agreed it's not good to use a belt to cover up or try to compensate poor form.

If you put a belt on tomorrow your form would be the same, your core would just be more stable because your able to push it harder.
 
What I'm driving at is that using a belt is often used to cover up bad form as in general, you benefit from the belt you have to lift with poor technique. Now in your case I'm sure this isn't true, and I'm sure you could probably lift fine with no belt - though I do accept that it can add a few kilos to your lifts in the right circumstances, and when competing you're likely to start failing and having that "safety belt" is handy.

However I shall leave it at that - I'm not having a "go" at you at all.

The facts are they give a lot of people a false sense of security. Professor McGill and many others did research on this topic and the conclusion is fairly unanimous. However, as ever I'm sure there are many other biomechanic expert who will oppose much of the research.

I accept it's an "enhancer" - but it shouldn't be viewed as a "protector" - and if used correctly using the valsalva technique then I completely accept their use for getting that extra bit of weight up (I still think that shouldn't be called Raw IMO). However, I still feel they shouldn't be used - but again, I will repeat, in your case I understand why.

I shan't detract your thread any further.

Good to see you're progressing well, you must be happy. :) You've come a long way.
 
Last edited:
Yea I'm really pleased with my progress. It's come together nicely since I've been working on my form and mobility.

Now I need to work on fine tuning my training so that I get the most out of my time in the gym.
 
I don't ever really advise athletes to use a belt, simply because it isn't necessary.

However, statements like "I guess you can get away with you core weakening by using a belt" and "Wearing a belt compensates for poor form" are a little inflammatory :p I haven't taken offence at all, I'm just looking to discuss the matter.

I don't disagree with McGill's research, but it's easy to take an overly dim view of belts from it.

The most important thing is good technique, end of story. This will protect you more than the best case of belt usage would. This is what I tell everyone when the topics come up.

Adding a belt allows for increased pressure and thus increase stability, providing all the benefits of this. Again, this is only relevant when technique is good.

I would like to see data on the amount added to lifts from the use of a belt, from personal experience it's minimal.
 
I agree with you that the increased lift is likely to be minimal, unless of course you throw form out of the window and you're doing all you can do get that bar back up. It's something a lot of people "state". I already stated that it was a poor choice of words "weakening core" I meant to state, as I already have, that owing to a weaker core a lot of people use belts, and when they lift, they get away with poor form, as lifting with poor form helps a belt's usage. If you lift with poor form, you get even more out of a belt - as such, it enhances poor form when using a belt exclusively. Now I know this doesn't apply to 99% of people in this thread and on OcUK, but it's important to note that belts, aren't necessary for most people as good form and a strong core should be achievable without it. I do concede that if you've had lower back issues either through previous injury and so on, then yes using a belt is sensible.

Ultimately, you've said the right thing, they key is good form irrespective of a belt. I fully understand the biomechanics of increasing pressure in the abdominal area, however, in general, unless on the limit of your capacity they do add little - and I question whether or not you should have to use a belt if you're getting near your limit at the detriment of form and core strength.
 
I think we're agreed.

The usefulness of belts is far more limited than the average person knows.

But insult my core again and I'll request an immediate pose down.

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom